memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Star Trek Generations
This page needs a lot of work- User:Rebelstrike2005 Needs attention *Star Trek Generations needs some work due to the poor grammar and spelling. --User:rebelstrike2005 20:45, Jan 5, 2005 (GMT) ** I did a copy-editing pass on the summary, which is still incomplete. It's still not terribly well written, either. --Josiah Rowe 06:43, 8 Jan 2005 (CET) *** I spent almost a full day going over this page and trying to make it better! -- Defiant 22 Jan, 2005 ****The summary still stops in the middle of the action. Needs attention until the summary is complete. -- Cid Highwind 15:13, 2005 Jan 23 (CET) *****Agreed. I'll try to start this soon, if no-one else does. It will probably need someone else to go over it, if I start it - I find it hard to be objective. If someone else has a shot first, I'll go over it and try to correct grammar, etc. -- Defiant 21:03, 27 Jan 2005 (GMT) ******The page is looking great! --Defiant | ''Talk'' 18:34, 27 Mar 2005 (EST) *******Maybe, but the summary really ought to be finished one of these days. Perhaps I'll get the proverbial "round tuit" soon...--Josiah Rowe 14:30, 28 Mar 2005 (EST) :There is a problem with the picture just above "memoral quotes. It shows two starships- a Nebula class (I think this is the Farragut) and what is labelled as a Miranda class. I think the caption's description is wrong about the classes, but I don't have the movie or enough experience with difference class vessles to be able to correct it. could someone take a look? Borguselinux 03:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC) ::Actually, it shows three starships: the Nebula class Farragut and the unnamed Miranda class starship are easily visible. However, a very small Oberth class starship is next to the Farragut in the image.--Tim Thomason 03:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC) :::gotcha. when I first read it I saw: the Farragut, is a Miranda class, ... I was adding an extra comma. my mistake:) Official title This isn't really important, but it should be known that the official title for this film and for Star Trek Nemesis do not have a colon (:) in the title. We could rename the article and keep the current one as a redirect since so many articles link to them in that spelling. Or maybe a mention somewhere in the articles. Or, we can keep it the way it is... I leave it up to you. I just thought everyone should know. --Shran 12:57, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC) Any expansion requirements? Are there any expansion requirements for this article so that PNA-Incomplete will be removed? The summary will need to be completed I think. Tough Little Ship 17:25, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC) Errors section of 2005-9-18 I added an errors section with only one note, about the joke Data "got" after installing his emotion chip. I know this looks strangely like the same error reference on Wikipedia's article, but that's because I also wrote that. I don't think copyright policy apples if the same person uses the same text on multiple wikis. --Zeromaru 03:37, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC) Nitpicks Removed: *While on location in the Valley of Fire, the production crew forgot to pack Captain Picard's combadge, thus having to shoot without it. In the film it appears as though it is lost in the transporter beam between the Enterprise and the planet below. *As Worf attempts to climb back up the side of the sailing ship (after being tossed overboard), his knees can be seen covered in red paint from the fresh coat applied to the hull of the ship. *Before Kirk jumps the gap on his horse while in the Nexus, there is a shot from beneath the gap, looking up, and there appears to be a dark colored board or bridge across the gap. When we see Kirk jump the gap, the board is no longer present. *Roads are visible in the background during the climatic fight sequence on Veridian III, even though the planet is uninhabited. *On the Enterprise-B bridge, when the ship is hit and crewmen go flying, you can see one man go over the bridge railing backward... twice, from different angles. When he lands the second time, the edge of a blue pad to cushion his fall pops up into the bottom of the shot. *During the crash sequence on the Enterprise-D, Worf is all over the place. Immediately following the stardrive's destruction, the shockwave sends Worf flying to his left. He crawls back to his station and then falls to his left again. Immediately following this (on Riker's line "Report!"), you can see Worf's hands holding on to the railing...the next instant he is to the right of his station. And in the very next scene, he is suddenly seated behind the tactical station. *The emotion chip is a larger square-shape than the original prop, seen in TNG: "Descent, Part II" as a small, circular sliver of metal. *Soran's probe appears to take only a few seconds to reach the star when only a warp-powered object could do this. Maybe the (astonishingly primitive) rocket is only a booster to leave the atmosphere, and the weapon has warp drive, but even so, changes on the star could only be seen from the planet a few minutes after the impact. *During the scene in which Geordi installs Data's emotion chip, Geordi's eyes can be seen clearly through the "teeth" of his VISOR. *Despite a spectacular crash scene, it is hard to believe that the Enterprise could take such extensive damage as to completely burn away the port bulkhead of the main bridge and uproot entire computer stations from the deck. It was discussed on Memory Alpha: Ten Forward that we were not going to have these sections in summaries, so I am placing it here. --Alan del Beccio 14:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC) ---- *The TNG Episode "Relics" is NOT set after the events of this movie. The Events that happened to Montgomery Scott that caused him to lock himself in the transporter beam were set after the events of the movie's opening scenes. But that is not saying the same thing. ---- ---- ---- removed info :To all the fans of Star Trek if you listen closely you will hear some of Star Trek Voyager sound effects in ST:Generations ex you hear the voy door page when Troy enters Pacards ready room, you can hear a mix of voy and TNG transpoter sound effects mix as on sound, when the enterprise goes to warp you can hear a mix sound combination of voy warp sound effect and the enterprise warp sound effect. And to note that in all the ST:NG movies you hear a lot of sound effects used on VOY's show. ex the red alert sound effect, VOY's page sound effect, open channel communications sound effect,transporter sound effects etc The above background info was removed to await verification. Is it true? If so, it should be re-written and re-added in the appropriate place (which is not the memorable quotes section, where it originally was). --From Andoria with Love 06:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC) The reuse of sound effects is no big deal, most of Voyager's sound effects turn up in DS9 and the TNG movies. It's not really worth quoting on - 59.167.8.24 00:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Kirk's Burial The statement about Kirk's burial being similar to Gary Mitchel's is in the James T. Kirk article, too, and I don't get it. Gary being smashed by a boulder by a phaser rifle and being buried on a mountain top under small stones really isn't the same at all. --Beyerku 17:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC) "Removed why" (that was removed why?) I'm not sure what you mean? I noted that two of the journalists didn't have links, though they're on the "unnamed humans" page ... so I added them. Did I inadvertantly remove something, or were they linked earlier and someone prior to me removed them? Kojiro Vance | Talk 06:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC) :No, that wasn't something you did, some anon came in and removed the reference to David Koresh being a cultist without giving an explanation. --From Andoria with Love 06:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC) New note The following note was just added: *In a inter-film alliance nod to a character Malcolm McDowell had previously portrayed, an extended sequence of the death-throes of Captain Kirk was filmed. The sequence included Soran revealing to both Enterprise captains his true identity of Alex De Large and him proclaiming himself the "galactic villain par excellence". The sequence was shot three times but cut in the end. Malcolm McDowell reportedly was outraged by this edit, stating that he " would have inflicted a bit of the ol' ultraviolence" upon certain parties involved in the production of the film had it not been for the intercession and counsel of a certain Q" I'm removing this. If it can be sourced (and I doubt it), then it can go back, but as it stands it reads like a load of crap. --OuroborosCobra talk 08:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Dates How were the dates 2293 and 2371 established for this film? Federation 06:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC) :The TNG parts of the film took place 7 years after "Encounter at Farpoint", set in 2364. 2364+7=2371. The scenes set in Kirk's era took place 78 years prior to the TNG era; 2371-78=2293. :) --From Andoria with Love 09:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC) ::I'm going to play the devils advocate and say that 7 years means 6.5 to 7.5 years. Assuming Farpoint happened at the beginning of 2364 that makes the date 2370 to 2371. Now again assume 78 means 77.5 to 78.5. This puts the first scene at 2292 to 2294. This has significant implications to the timeline of the other films, since Kirk's chat with Antonia (8.5 to 9.5 years prior) is now placed at 2282 to 2285. Federation 22:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Whoopi Goldberg question Why she's uncredited in Generations? I find it very strange, because she played quite important role in this movie. It's funny, because Wil Wheaton is credited for a 5 second cameo in Nemesis. Rodney McKay 19:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC) :Actors, particularly those in supporting or cameo roles, choose not to receive credit in a film for a number of reasons. The most likely reason in Goldberg's case (though I can't say for certain) is to save money. From what I understand, actors are paid more if they receive an on-screen credit; not giving her a credit in Generations or Nemesis saves money for other production needs. Also, if actors in small, cameo-like roles are as famous or more famous than the actors in leading roles, the more famous actor may not take an on-screen credit in order to avoid disputes with other cast members and/or to avoid the star recognition which may take away from the movie or character (if that makes sense). Other factors may also include keeping her appearance in the film a surprise (a film's credits are easily obtained, even before the film is released) or an actor's unwillingness to be recognized by name for some reason (as George Reeves did for From Here to Eternity, since he didn't want people associating his name with Superman); I doubt this latter was the case with Goldberg, though. --From Andoria with Love 04:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Why not called "Star Trek VII: Generations"? *How come all "The Original Series" movies are numbered (with the exception of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" as being number 1) and "The Next Generation" movies are not? --Captain Zman 03:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC) :It's probably just a stylistic change and they (the executive producers) decided not to number them. I believe all the post-VI movies had a number value for their working titles (Star Trek VII became Star Trek Generations; Star Trek VIII became Star Trek: First Contact; Star Trek IX became Star Trek: Insurrection; Star Trek X became Star Trek Nemesis; and Star Trek XI has yet to be given another title). It's also a respectable approach to acknowledge that the movies aren't continuations of the TOS movie storylines.--Tim Thomason 03:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC) *Point Taken, Tim Thomason. Thanks for clearing it up. --Captain Zman 07:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC) **To be honest I don't think the numbers are neccessary for the original either since they are not true continuations in the sense that each can be seen without seeing the previous (although II, III and IV are connected, the viewer does not actually need to see each film to enjoy the sequels). Federation 02:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC) oops Wow. Only wanted to make a bit of a change to the page and ended up accidentally deleting about half of it. Am glad I was able to restore it. Sorry for any inconvience. --leandar 03:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Removed opinion I removed the following nit/speculation/personal opinion, as it does not belong in an encyclopedia article as per forum consensus. I hope that made sense... --From Andoria with Love 00:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC) :* It doesn't seem likely that the Federation would allow the ''Enterprise saucer and Kirk's remains to remain permanently on Veridian III, especially considering that if, one day in the future, the inhabitants of Veridian IV developed spaceflight capabilities and discovered the crashed remnants of the saucer and Kirk's remains would likely constitute a terrible breach of the Prime Directive. It seems more likely that at some point, that Starfleet would return to Veridian III to remove the crashed saucer and also to remove Kirk's remains from the planet. (It also seems more fitting that one of the Federation's greatest heroes would eventually receive a proper internment and ceremony on Earth, rather than left on a mountaintop of an uninhabited planet.)'' :Ok. I didn't intend for it to come off as an opinion piece but something quite likely to have occurred. Will it work as a section in Apocrypha seeing as something like that happened in "The Return?" --leandar 00:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC) ::If it occurred in a novel, then Apocrypha would suit. Otherwise, it's speculation. -- Sulfur 01:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC) :Does it work better now? I think I got it. --leandar 01:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC) That looks fine. Good job. :) --From Andoria with Love 04:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC) :Thank you! --leandar 14:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Fan fic inclusion? Regarding the question of why Picard and Kirk went back in time to a point where their lives were in danger, a fanfic writing was written a few years ago and posted on the Trek BBS for a time which addressed this issue. Would it be proper to include a brief summary of that to show one possible method for addressing that issue? Of course, since it's nowhere near canon, it'd have to be completely apocryphal. But before I go to the time and trouble to put it there, I wanted to check and see if it's permissible to do that before proceeding. Thanks for your time. --leandar 14:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC) :The basic rule is that if it appeared or was mentioned in a non-canon licensed source (novel, etc.) then it can appear in the "Apocrypha" section, otherwise, it's speculation and shouldn't be mentioned. -- Renegade54 15:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Ok, thanks. --leandar 22:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC) ::In addition, if we were to add info for one fan-written story, we would then have to allow info for other fan-written stories, which would just get ridiculous. That's why we just stick with officially-licensed materials (one of the reasons, anyway). --From Andoria with Love 23:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC) :::Personally, I'd like to see us remove all fan fic/fan film (ie, hidden frontier and new voyages specifically) information from all articles except the fan fic pages. -- Sulfur 00:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Would it be permissible then to add what I was talking about then onto a fanfic page? --leandar 02:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC) :::Well, we have pages for fan films and fan games. Regular fan fiction though? No. That's not something that I think that is appropriate here. STEU is the place for fan fiction. Not MA. -- Sulfur 02:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC) ::::Ok, no prob. Thanks for the help. --leandar 02:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)